It is unfortunate that Akram Atallah has gone on record as saying that “However, questions remain as to whether it will be a round or a permanent window.” despite the ongoing processes which do not presume there will be further processes. Alan At 13/06/2016 02:53 PM, Rinalia Abdul Rahim wrote:

Dear Olivier,

The Board is aware of all the reviews that are currently being done. Certainly no decision will be made about the next round without the input from these reviews.

There are strong views being made to the Board about the need to start the next round. I think you can make an educated guess on where it is coming from. Rather than listen to one group, the Board would like to have a "sense" of the matter from all groups. A snapshot of the sense of the community in time if you will while we wait for the results of the reviews.

If you choose not to provide input to the Board at this time on the matter, that is entirely up to you. In my personal view, you would give up an opportunity to share what you think, which would be a pity because it gives more room for other views to stand alone without counter balance.

The formulation of the guiding questions is mine, based on what I think the key contention points would be. In a sense, it is what I think are aspects of what would be valuable for the Board to hear from the ALAC plus other aspects that you think are important.

Best regards,

Rinalia

On Tuesday, 14 June 2016, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <<mailto:ocl@gih.com>ocl@gih.com> wrote: Dear Rinalia,

I must admit that I am very surprised with the language used in your request and the questions that are asked. There are currently several processes which need to complete before a "next round" is even thought of. The CCT-RT and the "New gTLD Subsequent Round PDP" are very careful indeed in not presuming that a next round is going to happen, yet the language which you use in your email appears to point toward the fact that the Board is already intent on starting a "next round". Worse still it asks the unbelievable question of whether we should set a target date to work towards to initiate a next round? That would indeed be the best way to repeat all of the mistakes that were done in the current round and to irritate more governments and end users. The issue of a "next round" is so unwelcome at present that if the term "next round" is used in the CCT-RT, they need to put a dollar in a virtual swear box as a penalty.

Judging from your email, I am in fear that the Board, in its current wisdom, is far removed from understanding the current greed and lack of public interest found from the current round of new gTLDs. I am flabbergasted.

Kindest regards,

Olivier

On 13/06/2016 17:12, Rinalia Abdul Rahim wrote:

...

Dear ALAC,

In Helsinki, the Board will meet to discuss the outlook for the next round of the new gTLD Program. To support our discussions, we would like to be informed by stakeholder views. I have been requested to obtain the view of the ALAC. Would it be possible for the ALAC to provide a snapshot of its views on this topic in one slide? Please note that this information and presentation format would be applied to each stakeholder group's views.

Some questions to guide you: 1. Initiation of next round - do you think a date should be identified so that ICANN has a target to work towards? 2. Requirements for round initiation - what do you think should be in place before the next round is initiated? 3. Improvements - what elements of the new gTLD program should be improved for next round? 4. Other aspects that are of concern to the ALAC?

For the Board to have a chance to review the slide before its discussion, it would be good to receive the slide by 23 June 2016 latest.

I do understand that this is short notice. If you do not have sufficient time to develop a formal position, informal input would be sufficient at this time and it would be appreciated. The Board is likely to revisit the topic again during its workshop in September. There is thus another chance to provide a more extensive view, but for now the Board would just like to have a sense from the community on the topic to guide its early deliberations.

Thank you in advance and apologies for the short notice.

Best regards,

Rinalia

on behalf of the ICANN Board

_______________________________________________

ALAC mailing list

ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org

<https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac>https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac

At-Large Online: <http://www.atlarge.icann.org>http://www.atlarge.icann.org

ALAC Working Wiki: <https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALAC)>https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALAC)

--

Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD

<http://www.gih.com/ocl.html>http://www.gih.com/ocl.html Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline X-Microsoft-Exchange-Diagnostics:

1;SN1PR0301MB2030;9:Zthzp6cdtkcguam70EkLPIGXGcER6gJAfqEjwNUf6diI1C5QWbpfqcGIZ45NjseiyFPliPxN6g78lLXoosI5B8W8gFksbbukLMd4gvTzgXIwjxhsyPIKUFSWjKqEwdrPYMJ9cEy0uedegCU/1UXbRcoh8LmDTgtvHSAWSrjdg2HZqmOuL5OA3si3+QzDcRUE

_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac

At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...)